Canela v. Costco Wholesale Corporation et al

Filing 54

ORDER ON 51 JOINT DISCOVERY DISPUTE RE PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORY NO. 22. Signed by Magistrate Judge Susan van Keulen on 5/1/2018. (ofr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/1/2018)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

LILIANA CANELA,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No.13-cv-03598-BLF (SVK)

v.
COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION,
et al.,

ORDER ON JOINT DISCOVERY
DISPUTE RE PLAINTIFF'S
INTERROGATORY NO. 22
Re: Dkt. No. 51

Defendants.

12
13
14
15
16

This case involves claims by Plaintiff under California’s Private Attorneys General Act
(“PAGA”), California Labor Code Section 2698 et seq. Before the Court is the parties’ Joint
Statement Regarding Discovery Dispute Regarding Plaintiff’s Interrogatory No. 22. ECF 51.
Plaintiff seeks an order compelling Defendant Costco Wholesale Corporation (“Defendant” or

17
18

“Costco”) to respond to Interrogatory No. 22, which asks Costco to “state the phone numbers of

19

5,000 California Costco members, selected by the Defendant (and preferably at random) who have

20

been members at any time between January 1, 2016 and present for purposes of a telephonic

21

survey by the Plaintiff. The names of the members are not requested, and any survey performed

22
23

by the Plaintiff will not request members’ names.” Id. at 1.
Plaintiff argues that the information sought in Interrogatory No. 22 is relevant to her

24
25
26

PAGA claim that Defendant should have provided seats to its employees who worked as greeters
at the entrances of all of its California warehouses. According to Plaintiff, the California Supreme

27

Court has identified the defendant’s business judgment that its employees should be standing

28

rather than seated as one factor in deciding whether a seat is mandatory. Id. Plaintiff states that in

1

support of its recent motion for partial summary judgment, Costco submitted declarations of

2

employees who stated that Costco customers could be disapproving if the door greeters were given

3

seats, and that Costco’s Rule 30(b)(6) deponents have testified that a standing greeter is required

4

to meet Costco’s standards of customer service. Id. at 2. Plaintiff argues that the information

5

sought in Interrogatory No. 22 is necessary to enable it to test Costco’s assertions. Id.

6
7

Costco argues that phone numbers of Costco members statewide are not relevant because
of Costco’s pending motion for partial summary judgment, which argues that this must proceed as

8
9

a single-plaintiff case. Costco argues that Plaintiff’s “customer-survey evidence potentially
relevant to that limited case should focus on the locations where she herself has worked.” Id. at 3.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Costco also argues that the interrogatory seeks private, personally identifying information about

12

Costco members. Id.

13
14

The Court acknowledges that Costco has a motion for partial summary judgment pending
before the District Judge that may narrow the scope of the case. However, at this time, the scope

15
16
17

of discovery is defined by the allegations of the Complaint. On balance, the Court finds the
information sought relevant and proportional to the needs of the case, given that the burden on

18

Costco of providing the information is minimal, member names are not sought, and there is a

19

protective order in place. Accordingly, Costco is ordered to supplement its response to

20

Interrogatory No. 22 no later than May 7, 2018. Costco must designate its response

21

“Confidential” under the protective order in this case, and Plaintiff may use the information only

22

for purposes of conducting the customer survey identified in the parties’ Joint Statement.

23
24
25

SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 1, 2018

26
27
SUSAN VAN KEULEN
United States Magistrate Judge

28
2